The Bible just states that Noah is to build an Ark of "Some material", he could have had 20,000+ workers for all we know.

We only remember and write about the leaders of people who did great things. Like the Pyramids of Giza, we pretty much know for whom they were built and in some cases who was the architect. It's not like we would remember the worker pushing that last block up onto the top of the pyramid, or even how many workers there were.

So, it's very likely that Noah had many workers.

Did a person name Noah build an Ark. I am sure that it happened. Was it to the scale written in the bible, probably not. Its the telephone game right. As the story get passed along things get added on. The underlying premise of a flood is true. That is from many civilization stories in that area. The concept of the ark is probably true. Now the stuff that makes it LEGENDARY!!, that is debatable.

But yes ... @Lihu posted an article about the construction of a new ark/them park, and that is all that I was really talking about. :)

My post was really just to note that after the Nye/Ham debates, that Ken Ham earned 73 million dollars for the first phase of the Ark project. I thought it was appropriate to mention that in this thread.

Jon Kaufman (soon to be Dr. Jon Kaufman) is a member of the BICEP2 team that made the discovery described above. As one of the Ph.D. students in the project, Jon spent many months in the South Pole (there is an actual pole), recharging the liquid Helium on the telescope, for which he received a medal. It was his idea to draw this comic.

I guess he had a lot of time on his hands being in the coldest most inaccessible part of the world applying the coldest known substance available to us onto a telescope!

There are points I could make on the science of evolution, but I want to talk about the religion of young Earth, Flood Geology, and special creation. These three concepts fly in the face of evidence that is taken straight from Nature before our very eyes. If someone wants me to become a Christian like they are, and accept these concepts at the same time, they are asking me to deny the intellect that God gave me at birth. That, I will not do.

Ham's point of view is demeaning to the Christian religion because it asks believers to deny facts of Nature, not because they are demonstrably false, but because their religion requires them to. Christianity does not require that. People who say it does should stop saying that. It merely lends force to the argument that Christianity is nothing more than anti-intellectual obscurantism, and that to know God, one must take leave from reality.

There are points I could make on the science of evolution, but I want to talk about the religion of young Earth, Flood Geology, and special creation. These three concepts fly in the face of evidence that is taken straight from Nature before our very eyes. If someone wants me to become a Christian like they are, and accept these concepts at the same time, they are asking me to deny the intellect that God gave me at birth. That, I will not do.

Ham's point of view is demeaning to the Christian religion because it asks believers to deny facts of Nature, not because they are demonstrably false, but because their religion requires them to. Christianity does not require that. People who say it does should stop saying that. It merely lends force to the argument that Christianity is nothing more than anti-intellectual obscurantism, and that to know God, one must take leave from reality.

My feelings exactly. Part of the problem is too many people look at Science and Christianity as opposing views, which they are not.

Both of them are mired by human imperfection, and we must all accept that.

My thoughts on this are that we are intended to understand both of them to the fullest ability that we were given.